Literature DB >> 21528428

An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010.

Jong Yong Abdiel Foo1, Stephen James Wilson.   

Abstract

The growing emphasis on the importance of publishing scientific findings in the academic world has led to increasing prevalence of potentially significant publications in which scientific and ethical rigour may be questioned. This has not only hindered research progress, but also eroded public trust in all scientific advances. In view of the increasing concern and the complexity of research misconduct, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in 1997 to manage cases with ethical implications. In order to review the outcomes of cases investigated by COPE, a total of 408 cases that had been managed by COPE were successfully extracted and analysed with respect to 7 distinct criteria. The results obtained indicate that the number of ethical implications per case has not changed significantly (p > 0.01) since the year COPE was instigated. Interestingly, the number of ethical cases, and to some extent, research misconduct, is not diminishing. Therefore, journal editors and publishers need to work closely together with COPE to inculcate adoption of appropriate research ethics and values in younger researchers while discouraging others from lowering standards. It is hoped that with a more concerted effort from the academic community and better public awareness, there will be fewer incidences of ethically and scientifically challenged publications. The ultimate aim being to enhance the quality of published works with concomittant public trust in the results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21528428     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  14 in total

Review 1.  Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals.

Authors:  Michel C Atlas
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

2.  Consensus statement on the adoption of the COPE guidelines.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-07-30

5.  How impact factors changed medical publishing--and science.

Authors:  Hannah Brown
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-03-17

6.  Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case.

Authors:  Harold C Sox; Drummond Rennie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager; Virginia Barbour; Steven Yentis; Sabine Kleinert
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.351

8.  The committee on publication ethics flowcharts.

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager; Virginia Barbour; Steven Yentis; Sabine Kleinert
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2009-12-20       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager; Virginia Barbour; Steven Yentis; Sabine Kleinert
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.425

View more
  1 in total

1.  Quality of publication ethics in the instructions to the authors of Iranian journals of medical sciences.

Authors:  Fatemeh Salamat; Abdol-Rasoul Sobhani; Mahin Mallaei
Journal:  Iran J Med Sci       Date:  2013-03
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.